On 2016-03-30 18:51, Borja Ruiz wrote: > +1 for quick deletion. No further questions. > > Wed, 30-03-2016 a las 17:59 +0200, [email protected] wrote: >> -----Original-Nachricht----- >> Betreff: Re: [aur-general] AUR airvpn-portable changes files in userfolders, >> DO NOT INSTALL >> Datum: 2016-03-30T17:13:15+0200 >> Von: "William Di Luigi" <[email protected]> >> An: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" >> <[email protected] >> rg> >> >> But is deleting the package really the best route? Why not let the >> maintainer know and let them fix the package? This is not a virus isn't it? >> > I would consider such anti-pattern as a virus, as it could potentially > overwrite/destroy data out of pkg manager domain. Think about production > environments. This is unacceptable. > >> -- >> The maintainer has some other packages for airvpn which do not try to be >> "portable" in the MS-Windows manner. >> >> AUR packages may not change the users' HOME directories, that is the rule. 1+ >> for quick deletion. >> >> Best Regards >> Stefan
Note that this package does *not* write to any file in $HOME, but instead it packages certain files to be installed in $HOME. pacman would still complain if any package's file would conflict with an existing one. Correct me if I am wrong, but even though this package clearly violates the packagin standards, I do not believe it to be that critical that we need to make a big deal of it. The .install file does some things which could in theory delete user data (e.g. `ln -sf'). however it does so in a directory that belongs to the package, which is expected behaviour in .install files.
